21 ms·
Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent
- _Microft 5y agoIf you want to read a comment on this, try Derek Lowe's: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-s-hammer-delivers https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-... Wikipedia has an article on the drug already if you would like to have a look at that instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir
- kazinator 5y ago> exerts its antiviral action through introduction of copying errors during viral RNA replication How does this target only viral RNA, not the body's own? Copying errors don't sound like something you want in your own RNA. "However, there are inherent risks in this approach. NHC can be metabolized by the host cell to the 20-deoxyribonucleoside form by the ribonucleotide reductase and then incorporated into the host cell DNA. The mutagenic effect of NHC has been shown in animal cell cultures (10), raising concerns on the potential risk of molnupiravir-induced tumorigenesis and the emergence of detrimental mutations in sperm precursor cell generation and embryo development." https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(21)00667-0/pdf https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(21)00667-0/pdf Yikes. I think, instead of quaffing carcinogens, it's wiser to get vaccinated.
- wk_end 5y ago100% agreed on getting vaccinated, but for the elderly or immunocompromised people vaccination isn't enough to necessarily prevent severe outcomes and it might be worth the risk. As a young person, I'd probably stay away, at least in the near term, given how effective vaccines are.
- rossdavidh 5y agoI believe the reason the trial was in unvaccinated people, was so that it would have a big enough signal to detect quickly. If you did the same trial with vaccinated subjects, it might still be making a 50% reduction in hospitalization, but it would take a lot longer to detect that. I don't think the idea is to only give it to the unvaccinated.
- xxpor 5y agoI'd love to talk to someone who refused to get vaccinated but gave their informed consent to participate in this trial. Kind of boosts my personal theory is that a lot of vaccine hesitancy is driven by the fact that it's an injection and if it were a pill instead people would be more willing to take it.
- ashtonkem 5y agoYour theory is entirely possible. But I’d also like to point out that the study population was entirely Covid positive people with one or more risk factors. Presumably if you’re overweight, over 60, and have Covid you probably are willing to take more risks than before to improve your odds of not dying. Even the vaccine hesitant might accept that risk.
- endisneigh 5y agoHospitalization from COVID-19
- mmastrac 5y agoFunny that we just assume that anyways these days.
- loeg 5y agoThe full article title is: Merck and Ridgeback’s Investigational Oral Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduced the Risk of Hospitalization or Death by Approximately 50 Percent Compared to Placebo for Patients with Mild or Moderate COVID-19 in Positive Interim Analysis of Phase 3 Study The HN one is somewhat arbidged.
- javierbyte 5y agoI had to check the title to make sure it is not there. I totally read "from COVID-19" in my mind.
- hncurious 5y agoThere's a joke in here about the conflation of the data all throughout the pandemic and how there's been a failure to differentiate between with Covid and from Covid. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...
- shusaku 5y agoThere’s maybe an amusing counter point from this study. Here they ran a trial with a highly at risk population (due to comorbidities) and reduced hospitalization by 50%. I guess it’s possible the drug is 100% effective and the hospitalization of the remainder were driven by other factors, but even in that case you’d be overestimating hospitalization by just a factor of two. And since none of the people who received the drug died, I guess it’s good indirect evidence that we’re counting covid deaths among the high risk, diagnosed population reasonably well?
- mmastrac 5y agoIf I understand things correctly, this only helps _before_ hospitalization.
- loeg 5y agoThe trial was on non-hospitalized patients, because you can't test impact on hospitalization risk with patients that are already hospitalized. But given the supposed mechanism of action, I don't think there's any reason to believe it would not also be an effective therapy for hospitalized patients.
- matt_heimer 5y agoThis drug is an antiviral and isn't the Covid viral load already on the decline by the time that most people are hospitalized? See Fig 2 from https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3862 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3862 . Its the other issues like the inflammatory cytokine response, tissue damage, and secondary infections that cause the poor outcomes in most hospitalized patients. So you'd need to take any antiviral early on. I think they said within 5 days in this study. Also of interest is that the 5 day marker is where the mild and severe cases diverge according to the article I linked to.
- linuxftw 5y agoIt makes one wonder why they administer remdesivir and other similar drugs to hospitalized patients.
- _3u10 5y agoYes, so similar to ivermectin, it doesn't work.
- loeg 5y agoNo, that seems to be false? > At the interim analysis, molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by approximately 50%
- mc32 5y agoWill this affect mandate requirements, if as effective as it’s claimed? If so we don't need to reach hard to achieve 95% vaccination rates and we can get closer to a normal life.
- mmastrac 5y agoIf it halves hospitalizations, it'll have a pretty drastic effect on overwhelmed ICUs but there's probably still a ways to go before ICU levels return to normal and we can skip mandates.
- _3u10 5y agoNorway, Sweden, and the UK no longer have mandates, it's a political question not a medical question.
- jeltz 5y agoWe, Sweden, lifted the mandate 2 days ago and after a clear trend of the small fourth wave not increasing.
- _3u10 5y agoPrecisely. Also congrats on having sane politicians. Sweden has 10x the hospitalization rates of many countries that still have mandates, thus it is a political question, not a medical one.
- jeltz 5y agoWhat countries? Show me the data. Edit: Deleting most of my post since Sweden does not track hospitalizations, only ICU admissions so I compared incorrectly. Here is the graph for ICU, judge for yoruselves if there are any with a 1/10 of Sweden's numbers. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/weekly-icu-admissions-covid-per-million https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/weekly-icu-admissions-cov...
- shusaku 5y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/merck-antiviral-pill-covid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/merck-antiviral-pill-c... The NYTimes article sort of came off as suggesting this is a cheaper, easier to administer alternative to monoclonal antibodies. So I wonder what the overall effect will be on the number of deaths going forward. It’s definitely phenomenal science though, and hopefully we can use this to keep people out of the hospital!
- nradov 5y agoThe mechanisms of action are different. I expect clinicians would want to use both, at least for high risk cases.
- clairity 5y agothe interview i heard this morning indivcated that there's also a big unknown around whether it can induce genetic mutation (presumably in gametes). (male) participants were advised against (unprotected?) sex during the trials to prevent potential future problems with progeny.
- SamBam 5y agoMale and female participants were required to abstain from unprotected sex.
- tiahura 5y agoThe Ridgeback founders were on CNBC this morning in a very encouraging interview. A few takeaways: 1. They are testing now as a prophylactic and anticipate positive results. 2. The mechanism of action is different from the upcoming Pfizer pill, so it’s reasonable to expect they can be taken together as a cocktail for even better outcomes. 3. It is showing positive results with other viruses in animals. Cool stuff!
- elliekelly 5y ago> The Ridgeback founders were on CNBC this morning in a very encouraging interview. This just feels wrong and makes me uncomfortable for reasons I’m not quite able to articulate.
- tiahura 5y agoWhy? It’s my understanding that this flows from work done years ago at Emory University. With the exciting news, why shouldn’t they take a bit of a victory lap? Good for them.
- gfodor 5y agoThis is phenomenal news - I'm also curious how the various tribalist memes evolve. Will the vaccine maximalists who ridiculed "horse paste" when the data was still weak in part because a pill-based regime would undermine the message that vaccines ought to be mandatory embrace this much needed second tier therapeutic? Will the anti-vaxxers who will inevitably see this as the goal of a big pharma conspiracy covering up the efficacy of their drug of choice demonize this treatment despite the fact it conflicts with their fears of a vaccine conspiracy and will undermine the justification of mandates? Get the popcorn. edit: Maybe this should be marketed as Ivermectin 2? I bet that would get more unvaccinated people to take it.
- crooked-v 5y agoThe vaccine maximalists ridicule "horse paste" because many people are literally buying and ingesting products intended for livestock.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoyeah I hate this line of discussion because it tries to form some sense of "both sides" equivalency... and I think there's a big difference between supporting vaccine mandates and literally taking horse medicine.
- barbinbrad 5y agoIn his Nobel-prize lecture, the Merck scientist William Campbell, talks about how Ivermectin was always intended to be used in humans. Two relevant quotes from his speech are, "I had always insisted that our written departmental objectives would include the development of new drugs for control of parasites in humans" and "The end of ivermectin is nowhere in sight." Check it out: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/campbell/lecture/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/campbell/lec...
- crooked-v 5y agoI'm not talking about ivermectin itself. I'm talking about how people are literally going to livestock supply stores, buying products that contain ivermectin but come in forms and dosages intended for livestock, and ingesting those (even when intended for topical usage), based entirely on internet advice and without any kind of doctor oversight. That's where "horse paste" mockery comes from.
- davidw 5y agoA potential bottleneck in the deployment of this is that only Heimdall is able to wield the Molnupiravir.
- rossdavidh 5y agoThor! Or, perhaps, The Thing and the Hulk. Superman probably as well. So, still, a shortage of capable health-care workers to distribute, you're correct.
- AndrewBissell 5y agoSo an abbreviated trial in 775 people is considered sufficient to move forward with drug approval now?
- sudosysgen 5y agoFor a safety trial, likely not, but for an efficacy trial, this is pretty conclusive. In any case full approval will not be granted with even more in the way of trials.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> So an abbreviated trial in 775 people is considered sufficient to move forward with drug approval now? No. They don't have full approval, and aren't likely to get it in the next few months. From the article: > Merck Plans to Seek Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. as Soon as Possible Emergency Use Authorization is not full approval, and obviously comes with oversight and data gathering. "as soon as Possible" is not now. But they might get that in the next few months. Other than that, I don't know what to say about "sufficient to move forward" - any drug at any stage of trials is either abandoned or moving forward? A small trial that meets its goals is sufficient to move forward to the next trial so .. yes? But not to full approval, which they aren't getting anyway. This is an existing (but fairly new) drug so there there is other data on safety etc, links seem to be about 2019 onwards, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir
- AndrewBissell 5y agoWas using "approval" colloquially, I understand the distinction between that and "authorized." However I have seen many larger trials for other repurposed drugs being tried in early treatment dumped on as "underpowered" so it's just odd that that criticism is nowhere to be found in this case. There were 7 people hospitalized in the trial group and 14 in the placebo.
- loeg 5y agoThe criticism is not present because this one wasn't underpowered. > p=0.0012
- carbocation 5y agoI think it's disappointing that this thread has devolved into a political discussion that is hardly related to the topic. The scientific/medical achievement here seems significant. As an MD, the difference between calling in a script for a pill and arranging for outpatient infusion therapies is vast.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIndeed. The opportunity for prophylaxis with an oral antiviral is also amazing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Marsymars 5y agoI definitely would not want to be taking a mutagenic prophylactically.
- sudosysgen 5y agoI was talking about post exposure prophylaxis. This drug does have mutation concerns. If I'm choosing between a taking the drug right now for 2-3 days in lower doses Vs a 50% chance of taking much higher doses for 2 weeks, id take the former.
- freemint 5y agoThe moment you have symptoms peak replication is already over for two da,s. It's to late by then.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThat's not how PEP works. You'd be taking it after having had a contact, before symptoms.
- 5y ago
- lsternlicht 5y agoPhase 3 trial was stopped on a positive interim analysis by DSMB and in consultation with FDA Interim analysis was performed on approximately half of the total enrolled patients (775 of the 1550). Trial included many delta and other variant patients ————— Efficacy • ~50% reduction in hospitalization (14.1% PBO vs 7.3% drug) • 100% reduction in deaths (8 PBO vs 0 drug) ————— Safety • fewer adverse reactions in the drug arm vs PBO (40% PBO vs 35% drug) ————— [Merck Ridgeback press release] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211001005189/en/Merck-and-Ridgeback’s-Investigational-Oral-Antiviral-Molnupiravir-Reduced-the-Risk-of-Hospitalization-or-Death-by-Approximately-50-Percent-Compared-to-Placebo-for-Patients-with-Mild-or-Moderate-COVID-19-in-Positive-Interim-Analysis-of-Phase-3-Study https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211001005189/en/Mer... [clinicaltrials.gov] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04575597?term=molnupiravir https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04575597?term=molnupi...
- divbzero 5y agoLooks like the clinical trial was for age 18 and above so an EUA probably would not allow use in children.
- dham 5y agoI mean I think that's ok at this point. Kids are at greater risk of a lot of other things before Covid. We're going to have to figure out how to get our kids to become nose breathers again and fix their enlarged adenoids.
- rory 5y agoIs 40% adverse reaction to a placebo typical? Really makes me wonder how many "side effects" are in our heads..
- programmarchy 5y agoCouldn’t the adverse events in the placebo arm actually be caused by Covid?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- photochemsyn 5y agoSome interesting points on the nature of our pharmaceutical patent system... (and while the cohort in this study does seem a bit small, the conclusions appear to be fairly valid): > "Molnupiravir was invented at Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE), LLC, a not-for-profit biotechnology company wholly owned by Emory University, and is being developed by Merck & Co., Inc. in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics." > "In fiscal year 2019, more than half of Emory's total $689.1 million in research funding came from the federal government, the university's largest sponsor." Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck, and anyone who wants to manufacture and distribute it should be able to do so under an non-exclusive federal licensing program. The transfer of intellectual property created by the public funds to private entities is simply a criminal ripoff of the taxpayer. [edit] Wait, was this a three-week clinical phase III trial? Seems massively expedited relative to other phase III trials? > "Phase 3: Just 33% of drugs make it past Phase 2 and into Phase 3, which tests the potential treatment in the largest number of people. This phase measures both safety and effectiveness with many volunteers, sometimes thousands. Phase 3 trials last from one to four years." Trial began on Sept 2 2021 apparently? 1. https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/merck-ridgeback-molnupiravir-trial/ https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/merck-ridgeback-mol...
- OrvalWintermute 5y agoWe would need to examine the research proposals, and the data rights included in them, and if any other institutions providing matching funds, that resulted in this drug. Having said that, I broadly concur that we need to examine to what extent the federal government, and all of us taxpayers, should own outright some, or all as a % of the IP.
- dbcooper 5y agoWhy do people here always want to reduce the equity and income of pharma and biotech scientists?
- mhb 5y agoIt must be because they have extensively modeled the optimal societal benefit of reducing the financial incentive to these entities.
- WaitWaitWha 5y agoThis is not my field. But if there is a pill that can reduce death by 50% from the virus, I would like to know more about it. > Bright's concerns that similar drugs in its class have mutagenic properties As a layperson, this instantly raises a red flag in my mind. Should I be concerned? Why, or why not? More importantly, where can I find research that elucidates this for me?
- WaitWaitWha 5y ago>That's the effect of NHC and of molnupiravir. What about the bad side? Well, auxh nucleosides can also be taken up by many other enzymes, including those that handle our own nucleic acids, so some of them are mutagenic. Indeed, that's how NHC was first characterized, as a mutagen in bacteria. They also tend to be cytotoxic, via a number of mechanisms, and nucleoside drug candidates are notorious for wiping out in human trials due to toxicity in the liver, kidneys, and other organs. That was a feature of the 2012 scramble in the hepatitis C area, where Bristol-Myers Squibb paid 2.5 billion for a nucleoside addition to its proposed therapeutic cocktail, only to see it all demolished within a few months when it turned out to have severe problems in human trials. From this story and others you can also conclude that you don't necessarily get a good reading on this stuff in animal trials - another feature of Fun With Nucleosides.[0](Derek Lowe) [0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-last-small-molecule-coronavirus-hopes https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-last-... (edit: this is just a note I found, does not solve why/why not in my mind)
- vsef 5y agoThere are quite a few nucleoside analogues that have been used for HIV treatment: AZT, Zerit, FTC, Videx, Abacavir, 3TC, Hivid. There may be others I'm missing. Of these, only Abacavir and FTC (as part of Truvada) are still used, the others have fallen out of use or are no longer even manufactured due to their bad side effect profiles and propensity for severe adverse reactions. 'Nuke-sparing' regimen planning specifically would combine other classes of drugs to avoid this class due to side effect issues. I think it's great to have this new treatment option but this class of medications is well known for its side effects. Avoiding vaccines as 'unproven' and then going for this in particular I would consider eye rollingly wrong headed.
- DominikPeters 5y agoI enjoyed this article explaining in more detail how the drug works, though much of it goes over my head: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-021-00657-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-021-00657-8 Briefly, it causes the copying process of viral RNA to go wrong by increasing the number of G-to-A and C-to-U mutations. A potential worry is that such mutations will also increase in places where we don't want them, such as in host DNA, but apparently at least for mitochondrial RNA things look good.
- SamBam 5y ago> A potential worry is that such mutations will also increase in places where we don't want them Can anyone speak to how the drug avoids this? I've tried reading the literature, such as the Nature link above, and have failed to see what makes the drug specific to the virus.
- DominikPeters 5y agoNature link says the drug targets RdRp specifically which is a type of RNA copying mechanism (mostly?) confined to viruses. Wikipedia says about RdRp: > RdRps can be used as drug targets for viral pathogens as their function is not necessary for eukaryotic survival. By inhibiting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase function, new RNAs cannot be replicated from an RNA template strand, however, DNA-dependent RNA polymerase will remain functional.
- AndrewBissell 5y agoIt's also known to be mutagenic in mammalian cells, see the link I posted in a reply to the parent.
- rossdavidh 5y agoWell one possibility is that, like chemotherapy or radiation vs. cancer, it's worth the risk. The body has DNA-repair mechanisms that could clean up the mess, if you're only taking the pill for a short time. The virus does not. Just a guess.
- 5y ago
- crooked-v 5y agoThis is great news, but I worry that many people are going to take it as a continued excuse to actively avoid vaccination. Halving hospitalization rates would still leave ICUs everywhere filled with COVID patients taking beds away from people with other life-threatening conditions.
- guyzero 5y agoI'm excited to hear why the EUA for this drug is good when anti-vaxers have said they didn't trust the EUA for the vaccines.
- r00fus 5y agoThis drug helps the anti-tax after infection, but the vaccine helps others and only preventatively. Also was this medication developed using "mRNA"? That "messing with your RNA" angle is hammered repeatedly in conservative circles - enough that some of my not-right-wing neighbors are worried about it (like, go ahead and vax, but not for the children!!).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dukeofdoom 5y agoThis drug will be a big blow to those that support further lockdowns and plans for divided society based on vaccination status. The logic for coerced vaccine mandates was already on shaky ground. This will help to defeat it. If theres an effective treatment, you can't force emergency use a vaccine.
- whateveracct 5y agoPfizer isn't emergency use
- dukeofdoom 5y agoLast time I kept up with this, it was some purposeful legal loophole. The drug that got approved, is not yet available. I have a friend who is a nurse that's getting fired because she will not take the vaccine. She has patients that had adverse effects from the vaccine. I totally understand why she would not take it.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> Last time I kept up with this, it was some purposeful legal loophole. The drug that got approved, is not yet available. No, that was a maliciously stupid misreading of the FDA's statement. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fda-pfizer/fact-check-media-reports-have-not-lied-about-pfizer-biontechs-fda-approval-idUSL1N2PY0OL https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fda-pfizer/fact-ch... > The FDA state that Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA-approved (Emergency Use Authorization) Pfizer vaccine and is interchangeable (here). Their website says: “Providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine. For purposes of administration, doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed dose.” (here).
- programmarchy 5y agoThe language still seems slippery because while the formulation may be the same and interchangeable for providers, the legal process bound to the license could be different for the recipient. If the PREP Act still applies, then there’s less recourse for anyone that may experience an adverse reaction.
- henryw 5y agoAtea Pharmaceutical is finishing up phase 3 trial of a Covid anti-viral pill in November that might be more effective (based on phase 2 trial data) and doesn't mutate the virus: https://ateapharma.com/at-527/ https://ateapharma.com/at-527/
- zxcb1 5y agoIt's a program that incorporates itself into another program while at the same time corrupting the program, and after several iterations there is a catastrophic failure.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rflec028 5y agoIvermectin is inexpensive to manufacture, is extremely safe, and is currently being used by many countries to both treat and prevent the spread of covid. Molnupiravir had concerns during its development of the drug having mutagagenic properties. Why not just use the inexpensive, safe, proven effective medication?
- dougmwne 5y agoPlease don't post dangerous disinformation to HN. That drug is not an approved treatment for COVID.
- MisterBastahrd 5y agoThere aren't any first-world countries using ivermectin to treat or prevent the spread of COVID. Because ivermectin is roundworm poison, not an antiviral. The countries were desperate to try ANYTHING, and it was the best they could get their hands on at the time. They were prompted to action because ivermectin affected COVID in lab experiments, not in actual cases, and the result of the use in those countries were that ICUs were inundated by people who were taking said poison.
- barbazoo 5y agoI'm curious to know if there are studies involving actual Covid-19 cases being treated with Ivermectin. If not, why? If yes, what are the results?
- raphlinus 5y agoYes, there are 14 studies that met the criteria for inclusion in the Cochrane review of Ivermectin. The results are mixed (some show a bit of improvement) but overall weak. In addition, ACTIV-6 is a massive (15,000 participant) study that will study Ivermectin and two other repurposed medications. Because that study is large and rigorous, it will basically answer the question of whether Ivermectin works and how well. [1]: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... [2]: https://dcri.org/activ-6-study/ https://dcri.org/activ-6-study/
- nikolay 5y agoI wonder, what could be the potential drawbacks of protease inhibitors taken for long periods for prophylaxis? Aren't some essential processes going to be negatively and unpredictably affected?
- admeyer 5y agoParagraph near the bottom of Reuters article on Molnupiravir states: "Merck has said data shows molnupiravir is not capable of inducing genetic changes in human cells, but men enrolled in its trials had to abstain from heterosexual intercourse or agree to use contraception. Women of child-bearing age in the study could be pregnant and also had to use birth control." Link to said Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/mercks-covid-19-pill-cuts-risk-death-hospitalization-by-50-study-2021-10-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... What do you suppose would happen?
- TrevorJ 5y agoI believe that is standard for trials like these.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoRead this comment (directly above this question at the time of reading): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28722155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28722155
- barbazoo 5y agoDisclaimer: I'm not promoting Ivermectin here, don't get me wrong. I just want to cover my bases as this announcement is definitely going to be used by people to support their conspiracy theory. Earlier this year Merck the manufacturer of Ivermectin issued this [0] statement saying that Ivermectin isn't useful for preventing/treating Covid-19 and people shouldn't take it. Some people explained that with the fact that Ivermectin is cheap and they want to develop a more expensive option. I didn't take this seriously, just another conspiracy theory. But now they are coming out with a $1000 per dose solution. According to the FDA [1], the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 is still being studied and they refer to ongoing trials. Now some people with actual subject matter expertise will know more than me but afaik we haven't completely ruled out Ivermectin for the treatment/prevention of Covid-19, have we? If not, could there be some truth to the allegations that Merck somehow is stalling the Ivermectin studies? [0] https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
- bshoemaker 5y agoIs there any evidence they are? Otherwise, that sounds like a conspiracy theory itself.
- barbazoo 5y agoNot that I know if. I'm a layman I know pretty much nothing in that field so I'm just having a hard time dismissing the whole Ivermectin thing. Especially now that Merck will make a boatload of money with their new drug. If I was Merck and I had a drug #1 that costs a few cents that might work and I can develop a new drug #2 that will cost $1000, then I'd probably not look into #1 much simply for financial reasons. That might not be how it works but I simply don't know that.
- bshoemaker 5y agoSure, but you're suggesting that they are doing that without any evidence. This is classic conspiracy theorist rhetoric, whether that's your intention or not.
- tinus_hn 5y agoBut is it patented, expensive and in limited supply?
- yumraj 5y agoGenuinely curios, and the time will tell, if the vaccine sceptics will be more open to the pill, or if they will be equally/more sceptic of the pill also.
- EricE 5y agoI'm sure this won't be patented and instead will be given away for free. Right?
- b9a2cab5 5y agoConsidering vaccines are widely available and cheap or free, there's no reason this should be given away for free.
- sudosysgen 5y agoUhm, no they're not. Many countries are struggling to acquire vaccines even today as they waste away in the US.
- _Microft 5y agoTrying to improve my skills in recognizing denialism, I would say that this was the “Nefarious Intent” technique, wrapped in a layer of sarcasm? https://doctorow.medium.com/a-denialism-taxonomy-eeb1a2766849 https://doctorow.medium.com/a-denialism-taxonomy-eeb1a276684...
- _holographic_ 5y agoThere has never been a disease in history where the official guideline was to stay at home until you can´t breath anymore. Doctors around the world who treat this virus EARLY with off patent drugs like ivermectin have very good results (as good as the ones announced here). The western world has utterly failed in this pandemic.
- paulgdp 5y agoHere's a nice Twitter thread explaining how this works: https://twitter.com/bert_hu_bert/status/1444018619059429377 https://twitter.com/bert_hu_bert/status/1444018619059429377
- throwaway64643 5y agoSo next, if you don't agree to take this drug after getting COVID, you'll be excluded from getting ICU bed if needed?
- Newtonip 5y agoSince it targets RNA replication, I wonder if it may have efficacy against other retroviruses.
- raphlinus 5y agoSARS-CoV-2 is not a retrovirus. That said, it is likely effective against a wide range of RNA viruses, and its original testing and development was mostly done against influenza[1]. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6848974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6848974/
- JakeAl 5y agoReduced from 14% to 7% risk. Would be nice to see how it compares to other off-label treatments such as Ivermectin which has had great success in India.